Lawmakers encounter thicket in big to protect internet users

Wednesday

Jul 19, 2017 at 2:38 PMJul 19, 2017 at 2:38 PM

By Katie LannanSTATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

Opponents and proponents of legislation intended to protect the privacy of internet user data made their cases Tuesday, offering viewpoints so far apart that one lawmaker said the claims didn't make sense when taken together.

After hearing testimony for and against the bills, Rep. Joseph Wagner, the House chair of the Economic Development and Emerging Technology Committee, said the panel would need to "pull back as many layers on this as we might determine are there."

"One side is saying 'We're right, we know what we're talking about, and they're wrong,' and the other side is saying, 'We're right, we know what we're talking about and they are wrong,'" Wagner said. "Normally there's more gray. We can have disagreements about policy, but this is stark ... It can't be the way it's being described, you know what I mean? Logically, it doesn't make sense to me, so we'll be back to everyone on this."

Bills filed by Sen. Cynthia Creem, a Newton Democrat whose district includes part of Wellesley, and Sen. Bruce Tarr, a Gloucester Republican, would prevent internet service providers (ISPs) from collecting and selling their customers' information -- like browsing history -- without express consent.

Industry representatives said ISPs do not sell consumers' personal browsing history and federal policies already address the issue. They cautioned the legislation could bring unintended consequences, potentially stifling investment and innovation by ISPs in Massachusetts.

But supporters of the bills countered each of those claims, saying customers' ability to trust the internet is central to the success of startups and other companies in the state's technology economy, and that the Federal Trade Commission does not have the power to regulate ISPs on consumer privacy issues.

"Another thing the ISPs are going to tell you is that they don't do this, they don't sell your information, so don't worry about it," said Kade Crockford, who directs the ACLU of Massachusetts Technology for Liberty Project. "I find that a little difficult to swallow. They're sort of saying, 'Don't worry, we don't do this, so please don't pass a law preventing us from doing it.'"

The issue of internet data security rose to the forefront after a rollback earlier this year of Federal Communications Commission regulations put in place under the Obama administration to prevent internet providers from monetizing personal internet information without consent. The Obama-era rules had not yet taken effect, industry representatives said Tuesday.

"There is no gap in federal law that would permit ISPs to violate their consumers' privacy," said Anne Kierig of the State Privacy and Security Coalition, a group of technology, media, communications and retail companies and trade associations.

"Because consumers are already protected under both federal and state law as well as by the ISPs' commitments in their respective privacy policies and under self-regulatory principles, which can be enforced against them, action taken by an individual state to regulate ISP privacy would not meaningfully benefit consumers," Kierig said.

Creem testified on her bill (S 2062) with House Speaker Pro Tempore Patricia Haddad, who filed similar legislation. Haddad's bill (H 3698) was vetted by a working group convened by Speaker Robert DeLeo to guide the House's response to the Trump administration.

The working group, which Haddad co-chairs with Majority Leader Ron Mariano, also heard testimony on both sides of the issue and ultimately decided the bill should be reviewed through the traditional committee process rather than fast-tracked for passage. It's now before the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, where it had a June 13 hearing.

Haddad asked the Economic Development Committee to "take a good look...as to what else can be done," as related bills have been filed in both chambers.

"I'm a capitalist, I don't want to harm anybody's business, but I do want to be protected and I do want to be able to go to my constituents and say we have gotten you the very best deal in Massachusetts, regardless of what the rest of the country is doing," the Somerset Democrat said.

Creem said Haddad's support "makes me feel like there's a good chance that this bill is going to go places."

After the hearing, Wagner said the internet privacy question seems "intuitively that this has to be decided on a federal level, at least at first blush," but that the public is "skeptical of the viewpoint of the industry."